PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: German real wages in the Depression
- To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: German real wages in the Depression
- From: Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:37:38 -0700
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=UCYAjmRBCO8dzIkh7XVyEuwkYYGtrGfvWAJdwdxLq6Rd3YCTb6zpkqv4pr9PzxmWZ0Nagb3xpLEysdqdkcoOUtM+uDUpvRoAalhG/srPnY9BGyi1Bbr6r/68BFDHP1H4y+KE+dAmZGJcC3qJ/myt9EqzMI2BcBn2rqngaCMWVcE=
On 6/8/05, tom walker <lumpoflabour@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm talking about the 1943 note "The Long-Term Problem
> of Full Employment" (and the similarly themed letter
> to T.S. Eliot) that I previously posted under the
> heading "Keynes: 'Less work is the ultimate solution'"
>
> But how can you "totally ignore" something and yet
> "see them as... foibles"?
I said other people besides myself totally ignore something or see
them as foibles. Basically, most orthodox economists -- including most
Keynesians -- ignore the history of economic thought altogether
(except to cherry-pick a few quotes from Smith or whomever in order to
back up one's political biases) and see all good economics as
involving mathematics or econometrics, so that all new good economics
involves building on, contradicting, or verifying previous theorems or
empirical studies.
JD
- Thread context:
- Re: German real wages in the Depression, (continued)
Re: German real wages in the Depression,
Michael Perelman Tue 07 Jun 2005, 21:48 GMT
Re: German real wages in the Depression,
tom walker Wed 08 Jun 2005, 13:55 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]